SLANDER ACTION

Northern Advocate, 17 August 1933, Page 9

SLANDER ACTION

CLERK V, COUNCILLOR. ALLEGED THEFT OF PETROL. DAMAGES CLAIMED. (Per Press Association. —Copyright.) WELLINGTON, Wednesday. Damages amounting to £3OO were claimed in the Magistrate’s Court today by O. L. Bishop, town clerk of Eastbourne', from T. R. Duncan, a member of the borough council, for alleged slander. The allegation was that defendant, at a public meeting, used words that plaintiff contended meant that plaintiff had taken benzine, the property of the council, in excess of the free allowance, and without paying for such excess, thereby committing theft as a servant. Mr. Hoggard, counsel for plaintiff, said that defendant was formerly an employee of the council. Before the action was brought, plaintiff’s solicitors wrote to defendant demanding an apology for and withdrawal of his statements. Defendant replied that he never accused plaintiff of 4 taking petrol, and consequently could not withdraw a statement that he had never made. In spite of defendant’s denial that he had any defamatory intent, he proceeded to search for evidence in support of the accusation. Following a meeting of the council, defendant took steps to inspect the council books. He finally expressed himself satisfied that plaintiff had not taken any benzine over and above his allowance without paying for it. Outlining the general grounds of defence, Mr. Leicester said that defendant, who was a candidate at the Eastbourne borough council election, and who headed the poll so far as the male candidates were concerned, was particularly concerned with the question of the administration of the council’s bus service. It had been considered by four out of the nine councillors that his dismissal was unwarranted, and that feature of the matter must form an element for consideration in the case. His defence was that his speech was directed throughout to what he deemed to be maladministration of the service.

The defence, so far as words were concerned, continued counsel, was that the precise words mentioned in the statement of claim wore not used by defendant, and that the language used could not be taken by any reasonable listener to raise the inference that plaintiff had stolen any petrol. There was never any suggestion, nor had there been, that whatever petrol plaintiff obtained was not charged up to him in the ordinary way. It would also be pleaded’ that defendant was addressing a meeting of ratepayers, that defendant was an elector and entitled to criticise the affairs of the borough, and that anything he said on the occasion was privileged. Evidence for Plaintiff. Evidence along the lines of counsel’s opening address was given by plaintiff. Cross-examined by Mr. Leicester, plaintiff stated that defendant’s address was given by plaintiff. Cross-examined by Mr. Leicester, plaintiff stated that defendant’s address was more in the nature of an attack upon the then Mayor and himself than a criticism of borough affairs. Mr. Leicester: “In the matter of i administration?” Plaintiff; “It was more personal.” Counsel: “Did he refer to the fact that if some persons neglected to book up petrol no one would be any the wiser? ’ ’ —‘ ‘Yes. ’ ’ “Did he attribute this state of affairs to want of supervision?”—“Possibly. ” Counsel: “Did he go on to say the council had from time to time supplied the garage with pounds and pounds worth of tools, and that the tools had mostly been stolen, lost or strayed?” —“No.” In answer to further questions, plaintiff said that defendant did not say if he was elected he would put a stop to the practice of supplying people with council petrol. He did not refer to the Mayor’s car being in the garage for attention at various periods. Plaintiff said that any petrol he booked up would be booked up in a perfectly open manner. At some periods In* would be owing the council for two or three months’ petrol. The council was always safeguarded. Alfred William Press, managing director of Thompson Brothers Limited, gave evidence of what he heard at the meeting. “Do I take it,” said the magistrate, after hearing the evidence, “that the impression made on your mind was that defendant suggested that plaintiff was getting benzine dishonestly and cloaking it by faking bus running sheets? ’' Witness: “That was the impression in mv mind.”

Tlio case for Die |»lalntLlT had not boon completed when the oonrr adjourned until this mornimr.